Why is free speech defined by freedom of nazi and never by freedom for left wing people?
Nazi are popular now and sympatisants are political leaders. It is not their defense what defines freedom, it is everybody elses rights that define lack of it.
Nazi are popular now and sympatisants are political leaders. It is not their defense what defines freedom, it is everybody elses rights that define lack of it.
My question was while is it ok to silence progressives, feminists, left wing, critics of nazi and still be considered free speech activist while "not actively defending nazi" is excluding you from that.
Your only benchmark for free speech is "are nazi helped enough in their quest to oppress others". You dont care about anybody elses rights.
"I'm in favor of gun rights and that's why we need to eliminate the 2A"
I don't think you get it lol. Your arguments are not consistent with you understanding the facts. Who do you expect to convince with unapologetc ignorance?
It still fights for free speech for left wing causes, but not for right.
On a deeply personal level? That doesn't overly bother me, because I am fairly far left wing. But it's somewhat antithetical to -their- stated cause, about "protecting all speech, because as soon as you don't protect some, more and more is attacked".